Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 10 January 12 >

January 11[edit]

Category:RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta presenters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn - Issue fixed, No need to let this continue. –Davey2010Talk 23:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: Pointless category all for one notable person. –Davey2010Talk 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • I've added the presenter to the article[1] thus making this category technically empty. –Davey2010Talk 22:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davey2010: Adding a page to a list does not justify its removal from a category. So no, that would not make this category technically empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not removed anything from the category - I've simply added presenter to the article, Inregards to the "technically empty" thing... well we'll have to agree to disagree but I personally still think the category is pointless for one article, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator). I dunnno why I didn't populate this properly when I created it, but 5 minutes work now got it up to 10 articles. Note that WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to categories which have realistic potential for growth. It's a pity that the nominator @Davey2010 didn't take 60 seconds to see whether this one had realistic potential for growth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl - Incase it's not apparently obvious I have no knowledge at all with categories so you not doing whatever it is you done to it is not my problem, If you don't want editors nominating your creations in good faith then how about double-checking these things before making them live!, Withdrawn anyway. –Davey2010Talk 22:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • V odd, Davey2010. If you have no knowledge at all with categories and don't want to spend a few minutes reading up on them, why launch straight into a deletion nomination? Good faith involves a bit of WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing odd about it, "If you have no knowledge at all with categories and don't want to spend a few minutes reading up on them, why launch straight into a deletion nomination? The only thing that's very odd is you not viewing your creations AFTER you've created them, Maybe because I didn't realise there was an error with it ?" ... Maybe I took the category at face value as anyone would have done?, I don't work with cats so have no interest in doing BEFORE and all that - I saw one entry and figured CFD was obviously for the best, As I said if you don't want your stuff nominated then make sure they're all okay beforehand, Have a great day. –Davey2010Talk 23:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Argentine governors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Governors of provinces of Argentina, without prejudice against any future nomination to consider alternative naming conventions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Provinces of Argentina, and to clarify that this is about provincial governance rather than colonial era. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alela Diane[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Only album articles which are appropriately categorized without need of this as a parent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, a musician does not automatically get an eponymous category just because she has a WP:BLP and an "albums by" category — eponymous categories only get created for people who have a lot of spinoff content that needs person-related categorization beyond the standard categorization schemes that every musician already has. For example, Category:Madonna (entertainer) has eight subcategories, not just one for her albums, and 31 other articles besides her BLP that are related to her in ways that wouldn't fit any of the standard categories. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Youth organizations by date of disestablishment[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry - a subcategory. Hard to see why we would want to categorise Youth organizations by date of disestablishment. Rathfelder (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Youth organizations disestablished in the 1960s[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry. Hard to see why we would want to categorise Youth organizations by date of disestablishment. Rathfelder (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Growth media[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Growth media to Category:Cell culture media. Pinging the participants to do any necessary cleanup: @Ajpolino, Soupvector, and SmokeyJoe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. There is no apparent difference between the two. The pages in both categories could be in either. Ajpolino (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - growth media include microbiological media, but the reverse is not true; growth media include media for sustaining mammalian cells lines, for example, that do not fall under microbiological media. — soupvector (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Some of the growth media listed are agars used for isolating organisms, not supporting growth. The category is therefore at least misnamed. Not sure I agree with soupvector, that cell lines are not "microbiological". If there are members in Category:Microbiological media are are specifically for supporting tissue growth (or stasis) as opposed to growth of single cells, then they should be moved out to a new category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While some cell lines might be used for some microbiological applications, many others are used for cell biology - so "microbiological" would not be inclusive of "cell lines" (they simply overlap); RPMI is one example of this (I have used this in my lab almost exclusively for growing human lymphocytes - not for microbiology). Perhaps SmokeyJoe could point out (or just fix) those listed pages that are not growth media (and therefore should have the "growth media" category link removed); I do see some agars that are supplemented with nutrients (making them both growth media and microbiological media). — soupvector (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Microbiology contains Category:Microbiological media. For microbes.
Category:Cell culture contains Category:Cell culture media. For cell culture, cells from multicellular organisms, insects to humans.
i.e. Rename Category:Growth media to Category:Cell culture media. Clean up membership, eg New York City Agar belongs under Category:Microbiology not under Category:Cell culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this alternative proposal - thanks for this excellent suggestion. — soupvector (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this as well as original proposal (as nom). Thanks all for your thoughts! Ajpolino (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paintings depicting Daniel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all per revised nomination, without prejudice to re-creating any of them if and when there are more than 5 articles to put in them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom the Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jonah categories. Oppose merging the Daniel category Daniel is not considered a prophet in Judaism, and the Book of Daniel is excluded from the prophetic books. The relevant article specifically calls attention to the exclusion. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about Daniel, I have adapted the merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support last three (unless we can get at least 5 articles), but Daniel is different. (1) Judaism places the book in writings (not prophets). (2) between Daniel in the Lions Den; the three children in the firey furnace and perhaps apocryhal additions such as Susannah, there is probably enough for Category:Paintings depicting the Book of Daniel. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently we have only two articles, I can't imagine that it will quickly grow to a much bigger number. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Civic youth organizations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: disperse among Category:Political youth organizations and possibly other categories in the tree of Category:Youth organizations. @Rathfelder: would you want to go ahead dispersing and could you ping me when the category is empty? (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined. Most of the entries related to programs run by the American Legion which didn't appear to be organisations at all and I've put them in that category. The distinction between this and Political youth organizations seems a bit subjective Rathfelder (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC I had created this to host Otpor and similar. These were NGOs that were not political as in party-affiliated, just generally civic-minded. If you have to merge it somewhere, I suppose the political youth organisations category is a better destination than the generic one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to disperse the articles if we agree that civic doesnt work. Arguably large numbers of youth and child organisations are civic minded. Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recent years[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy deletion contested. CfD seemed appropriate. See discussion on talk page. Empty category on an editing area "recent_years"_and_other_years? discussed at a recent RfC and, in my reading, deemed surplus to requirements. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the community agrees that there is no need or desire to delineate between some arcane definition of "recent years" and "non-recent years". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too poorly defined to be useful. Rathfelder (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Rambling Man....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this category as part of an attempt to reform the walled garden of recent years articles. It now appears that instead of being reformed, WP:RY just isn’t a thing anymore, and that is probably fo the best. That being the case this category is no longer needed as it’s only purpose was to identify what articles fell under the scope of that now non-existent guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the scope is "years since 2002", this does nothing that subcategories of Category:2000s and Category:2010s do or could do just as easily. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear definition, and content likely to change as years pass. This is not how we categorize time periods. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Definition depends on POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even less appropriate than Category:Recent_decades, Category:Recent_centuries and Category:Recent_millenia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cloverfield films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, without prejudice to recreation if and when it can contain more than 3 pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; better as a list or navbox Joeyconnick (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - when I checked the category this morning, it was empty at the time. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I did empty the category before I made the deletion request... sorry if that wasn't the proper procedure. It couldn't be deleted simply by doing so because someone had actually edited the category page. It had 3 elements: Cloverfield, 10 Cloverfield Lane, God Particle (film)—and had been recently created (yesterday, I think) so my impetus was to nip it in the bud as a WP:SMALLCAT. Are we supposed to propose it for deletion first? —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's correct. It's usually difficult for fellow editors to discuss a category when they don't even know what is / was in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I guess I will revert the category removals from those pages. My apologies. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potential for significant growth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_11&oldid=1073191623"